December 21, 2009

Erick Williamson, the Springfield, Virginia man arrested earlier this year for being naked in his own home was convicted of indecent exposure on Friday. The judge sentenced him to 180 days in jail, but suspended the sentence.

I’m still not sure how the conviction holds up, given that the two alleged witnesses had to actually look into Williamson’s house to see Little Erick and the Williamson Twins. So you now have to make sure no one can see into your home in order to be naked in it? How vigilant must you be?

While Balko doesn't give a lot of credit to the stories of the witnesses, under any version of the facts, this hardly seems like a person that should be subject to the federal and state restrictions on sex offenders. However, while the judge in the case couldn't have excused the defendant from registration obligations, he exhibited the sex offender hysteria that would have made it unlikely that he would have done so if given the option:

Williamson denied standing naked in his doorway or front window and said he had no intent to expose himself to anyone. But [Judge] O’Flaherty wasn’t buying it and likened Williamson to bank robber John Dillinger, who also “thought he was doing nothing wrong when he walked into banks and shot them up.”

The opinion, which was written by Justice Barbara Milano Keenan, reverses a decision from the Charlottesville Circuit Court allowing a sex offender to come onto Charlottesville public school property under certain conditions.

Stacy Haney, a Richmond-based lawyer who represents the city’s School Board, said school supervision is vested in local school boards under the state’s Constitution. Haney said the Supreme Court’s opinion would be far-reaching.

Under state code, sexually violent offenders are prohibited from entering public or private school or daycare center property unless they attend the school, vote there or have a court order.Doe was released from incarceration in 2000 and completed his supervised probation uneventfully. He filed a petition seeking permission to go onto school grounds to pick up his stepson and attend activities involving the child. Circuit Judge Edward L. Hogshire granted the request over the School Board’s objections, Haney said, imposing conditions to limit Doe’s on-campus time and requiring him to give the principal notice before coming to school activities.

“As long as Doe did what the order said, he could come onto property and the School Board couldn’t prohibit it,” Haney said. “What this opinion says is that while the trial court can enter an order lifting the statutory ban on sex offenders going onto the school’s property, the School Board retains the ability to say who can and can’t come onto school property.”

A bill sponsored by Del. Charles Poindexter,
R-9, that would require more information to be posted on the internet
sex offender registry passed through the House and will move on to the
Senate.

The internet sex offender registry lists the names,
ages, addresses, pictures and offense descriptions and dates of
convicted sex offenders. Poindexter's bill would allow the State Police
to add information about sex offenders who are wanted, either for not
registering with the registry or for any other crime. The bill allows
for the State Police to add any information they judge "necessary to
preserve public safety."

The State Police control the registry and update the information. The bill specifies that the registry would be updated daily.

Sen.
Robert Hurt, R-19, is listed as a co-patron of this bill. He has not
yet heard the bill in committee and will reserve his final judgment
until then. He supports the idea of the bill because the purpose of the
sex offender registry is to provide information to the community, he
said.

"The changes include information parents want to know," he
said. "This is information that could protect our most vulnerable
citizens, who are our children."

The sex offender registry should include as much information as possible to make Virginia a safer place, he said.

The bill passed the House last week in a 99-0 vote. It will be heard by a Senate committee in the coming weeks.

February 04, 2009

The Fourth Circuit, in United States v. Thornton, No. 08-4251, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 1988 (4th Cir. Feb. 3, 2009), held that Virginia's statutory rape offense is not a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Begay v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 1581 (2008). You can read the opinion here. From the opinion:

A jury convicted Michael Ray Thornton of possessing a firearm and
body armor in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 931. During his
sentencing, the district court classified Thornton as an armed career
criminal subject to a sentence enhancement based in part on a 1986
statutory rape conviction. At issue on appeal is whether Virginia’s
statutory rape offense, which makes it a crime to "carnally know[ ],
without the use of force, a child" between thirteen and fifteen years
of age, is a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act
("ACCA"), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). Because we find that Virginia’s
carnal knowledge offense does not constitute a violent felony under the
ACCA as interpreted by Begay v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 1581 (2008), we are constrained to reverse....

Under Begay, Virginia’s carnal knowledge offense is not sufficiently similar to the enumerated crimes in kind or in degree of risk to constitute a violent felony. We reverse the district court’s opinion, vacate Thornton’s sentence, and remand for sentencing consistent with this opinion.

October 08, 2008

At SL&P, Berman continues to track the variations in prosecutor's requests for child porn sentences at the federal level. The latest data point was described as follows:

Regular readers may get tired of my regular anecdotal reports on federal child porn sentencings, but I continue to struggle to figure out how different US Attorney offices are dealing with these sad cases. For example, consider the remarkable case from Virginia reported here, headlined "Former Marine gets 12 years for 650,000 child porn images." The press account indicates that the defendant had a history of sex with minors and a record-setting collection of child porn....

[D]espite all of these aggravating factors, the federal prosecutors in this case apparently were only seeking a sentence of just over 11 years of imprisonment. This recommendation seems in stark contrast to the recommended sentence of nearly 20 years in the Hanson case ... and other cases I have seen in which more sympathetic defendants are facing much longer recommended sentences from federal prosecutors.

I'm not sure I have a good explanation (although you could argue some differences in particular cases) for the overall variation. I'm curious to see if there is any explanation for from U.S. Attorneys prosecuting these cases.

Legislative hearings concerning Vermont's criminal justice system will "likely result in a recommendation for stiffer mandatory minimum
sentences for the most egregious sex offenders," according to the chairman of a key
senate committee. Sen. Dick Sears, head of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, said that longer sentences for "habitual"
offenders offer state prosecutors an opportunity to apply more severe
charges in appropriate cases. Sen. Sears stated that, "I think the committee will be
looking at strengthening laws, in terms of lengths of sentences, as
well as a bigger focus on prevention programs."

Morrill told an investigator preparing his pre-sentence report about being sexually assaulted by the legendary Bigfoot, a North American folklore character said to be between 7 and 10 feet tall, and covered in dark brown or dark reddish hair. Patton said Morrill really believes the assaulted happened.

If you actually go read the story, you see my nomination for worst mugshot of the year so far.

March 10, 2008

State legislators passed a law Saturday that would require adults who French kiss a child younger than 13 to register as a sex offender.

Those convicted of tongue-kissing a child would be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. The House of Delegates passed the legislation 96-1 and the Senate 39-0.

The bill now heads to Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, who said he supports the legislation.

Delagate Riley Ingram, R-Hopewell, introduced the bill on behalf of a woman whose 10-year-old daughter was French-kissed by the 62-year-old husband of her babysitter.

The only crime prosecutors could charge the man with was contributing to the delinquency of a minor, which did not require that he register as a sex offender.

Ingram and other members of the House fought to make the crime a felony, but in the final day of the 2008 General Assembly session gave in to senators who thought that classifying it as a felony was too harsh.

Delegate Phillip Hamilton, R-Newport News, cast the lone nay vote, refusing to back down from his belief that the crime should be a felony.

"I think that type of behavior is so egregious it warrants a felony," Hamilton said.

It's always odd when a single bizarre incident requires the legislature to jump into action. I hope the legislators at least took steps to define tongue kissing narrowly.

February 11, 2008

Sentencing Law and Policy reports that a convicted Level 3 sex offender has won a $10 million lottery. The man could now face charges because he did not notify authorities in Connecticut that he had moved. My bet is that he thinks that is worth the $10 million.

Wisconsin legislators are considering a change to the state's sex offender disclosure law which would require convicted sex offenders to report their profession. The move comes after authorities learned that a convicted sex offender was running a pornography and drug paraphernalia store which had become a magnet for teens. When I heard the idea, I assumed the job was at a school or daycare, not at a head shop.

Some newspapers are running an editorial suggesting that sex offender laws do more harm than good. Here is an editorial from Virginia and one from Washington. Despite the different locations, though, it is actually the same editorial. At least it is getting widespread attention.

The SCOTUSblog notes that the Petitioner's merits brief in Kennedy v. Louisiana (07-343) is due this Thursday. I'm looking forward to reading it and I'll post it as soon as I get it. The amicus briefs for the petitioner are due the following week.